LTH 692

Renormalization group aspects of the local
composite operator methodj

R E Browne 1 , D Dudal 2 , J A Gracey 1 , V E R Lemes 3 , M S
Sarandy 4 , R F Sobreiro 3 , S P Sorella 3 and H Verschelde 2

1 Theoretical Physics Division, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of
Liverpool, P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, United Kingdom

2 Ghent University, Department of Mathematical Physics and Astronomy, Krijgslaan
281-S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

3 Departamento de Fi'sica Teorica, Institute de Ffsica, UERJ, Universidade do
Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rua Sao Francisco Xavier 524, 20550-013 Maracana, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil

4 Chemical Physics Theory Group, Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto,
80 St George Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3H6, Canada

E-mail: jag@amtp.liv.ac.uk

Abstract. We review the current status of the application of the local composite
operator technique to the condensation of dimension two operators in quantum
chromodynamics (QCD). We pay particular attention to the renormalization group
aspects of the formalism and the renormalization of QCD in various gauges.

| Talk presented at 5th International Conference on the Renormalization Group, Helsinki, Finland,
30th August - 3rd September, 2005

RGE and the LCO method

2

1. Introduction

The quantum field theory underlying the strong force of nature is widely accepted
as being quantum chromodynamics (QCD) which is a non-abelian generalization of
quantum electrodynamics. At large energy the constituent fields, the quarks and gluons,
behave as free particles which is a property known as asymptotic freedom. In this case
one performs calculations in QCD based on a vacuum which is empty and which is
known as the perturbative vacuum. However, it is accepted [TJ El El that the true
vacuum of QCD is more complicated and is not the perturbative one. An indication
of this is that in the true vacuum gauge invariant operators condense. Indeed the two
operators which receive wide attention are the operators asG® u G a ^ u and if>if), where
is the gluon field strength, if) is the quark field and as is the stong coupling constant.
Consequently, it is possible to incorporate the vacuum expectation values (asG^ v G aflu )
and (if>if>) into the operator product expansion in order to determine the effects they have
in the measurements of physical quantities and QCD sum rules, jSj. Indeed it is possible
to extract numerical estimates for them. Whilst these operators are the main ones of
interest, it has been pointed out more recently that additionally one can construct a
dimension two operator in QCD which is gauge invariant, [El III IE]- However, this is also
believed to condense giving rise to 0(1 /Q 2 ) power corrections in the operator product
expansion and other quantities, CHI HI] • Specifically the operator is

v- 1 (1)

where U represents the set of all gauge configurations and A 1 ^ is constructed in
such a way that it is in fact gauge invariant. Consequently, unlike G^G 11 ^ and
if)if), the operator is non-local but can be written in terms of the usual gluon
gauge field yielding a power series in g when evaluated explicitly. This dimension
two operator has been the subject of intense study in recent years, mostly from
the point of view of trying to estimate a value for its vacuum expectation value,
[121 [HI HH [13 Ea HZl CHI CHI I2II1 I2I1 1221 I23l I2H 123 O Further, the role a non-
vanishing vacuum expectation value of a dimension two operator had on the estimate
of glueball masses in the Coulomb gauge had been discussed earlier in [27j .

Having a non-zero vacuum expectation value for this operator has interesting
implications for trying to understand the properties of QCD and for phenomenology.
One area of study has been on the lattice where there appears to be numerical evidence
for 1/Q 2 power corrections in a variety of quantities [H1E3E]- For example, an effective
strong coupling constant, a s s (Q 2 ), requires a 1/Q 2 correction to correctly fit lattice data
in the range 2-6 GeV, [211121] ■ This necessitates a dimension two object on dimensional
grounds. Another consequence is that such a dimension two condensate would imply
that the gluon has an effective mass which is generated dynamically, |T31E|. Estimates
for the value of such a mass have been summarized in table 15 of Field's article [30J.
These have been extracted from phenomenology where one includes a gluon with a mass
in order to fit experimental data more accurately.

A,

mm

{U}

RGE and the LCO method

3

However, one of the main interests in understanding gluon mass is its relationship
to the confinement mechanism. Whilst there are various ideas about what underlies this
property of QCD and the strong force, the actual situation has not been determined yet.
One point of view is that of abelian dominance [HH EH IHH] • Essentially this is based on
the premise that in the infrared the abelian sector of the gluon field dominates. It is then
believed that the infrared sector of QCD could be described by a dual superconductor,
whereby a monopole condensation would give rise to confinement via the dual Meissner
effect. Moreover, in the context of the generation of an effective gluon mass, one
viewpoint is that in the infrared the gluons associated with the centre of the colour
group remain massless whilst the off-diagonal gluons gain a mass dynamically. Indeed
there appears to be some preliminary lattice evidence for such a scenario, p""""] 13*5] . To
investigate such a hypothesis in QCD from a field theory point of view requires both
a calculational technique to handle dimension two operator condensation as well as a
way of focusing on the centre gluon fields. For the former, the local composite operator
(LCO) method has been developed both for QCD, [B], and for models such as the two
dimensional Gross-Neveu model jHf3EZI, where one has the exact mass gap to justify
the approach. To examine the differing nature of the gluon field, one can choose to
fix in the maximal abelian gauge (MAG) where the gauge fixing differentiates between
centre and off-diagonal gluons. In the main in this article we review the procedures and
recent results in using the LCO method to study the consequences of the condensation
of a dimension two operator in QCD in various gauges, concentrating on those aspects
which relate to the renormalization group which underpins the technique.

2. Background

Before detailing the LCO approach it is worth recalling the background to the problem
of gluon mass in Yang-Mills theories. One early study was that of Curci and Ferrari in
[31"] where they constructed a Lagrangian with a gluon and ghost mass with a nonlinear
gauge fixing. In particular the Lagrangian is

L = — -G A G A » U - —(d^A A f + —A A A A »

+ d,c A d»c A - am 2 c A c A - 9 -f ABC A A c B &c c

+ ^fEAB f ECD-A c B-C c D + _ m ^ (2)

8

where A A , c A and ip zI are the respective gluon, ghost and quark fields, 1 < A < Na,
1 < / < Np and 1 < i < Nf with Na and Np the respective dimensions of the adjoint
and fundamental representations, Nf is the number of quarks, T A are the generators of
the colour group whose structure constants are f ABC and the field strength is given by
G A U = d^A A — d v A A — gf ABC A B A^ where g is the coupling constant. In the case when
the gluon mass m is zero, the Lagrangian is regarded as QCD fixed in the Curci- Ferrari
gauge. It gives rise to a different gluon-ghost interaction from that of the usual linear

RGE and the LCO method

4

covariant gauge fixing. In addition there is a quartic ghost interaction which does not
invalidate the renormalizability of the Lagrangian. When m is non-zero one has a mass
for both the gluon and the ghost where the respective gluon and ghost propagators are

Whilst the Lagrangian is no longer invariant under gauge transformations, it is in fact
(on-shell) BRST invariant for non-zero m, 38 . This latter property suggests it is
a reasonable candidate for studying models with gluon mass. However, the initial
interest in this model had to be tempered with the realization that whilst one has
BRST invariance the BRST charge is not nilpotent since its square is propotional to
m? . Consequently one does not have a unitary theory and negative norm states can
be constructed to demonstrate this |39t l4*Uj . Aside from these limitations the Curci-
Ferrari model has several important properties. One is that the presence of a mass
for the gluon provides a natural infrared regulator in the theory. Indeed it has been
renormalized explicitly at two loops, jHJ H2]- Therefore, it could be a useful tool in
extracting renormalization constants where there are potential infrared problems. More
importantly though the resurgence of interest in this model rests in its relationship to
other gauges. In the case where a = 0, the Curci- Ferrari gauge reduces to the usual
Landau gauge, 38J. However, if one examines the off-diagonal sector of QCD fixed
in the maximal abelian gauge (MAG), it transpires that that sector is precisely QCD
fixed in the Curci- Ferrari gauge, |13| . Therefore, the Curci- Ferrari model can be used
as a laboratory for investigating the problem of abelian dominance in QCD and the
dynamical generation of mass for the off-diagonal gluons. Whilst the main disadvantage
of the Curci-Ferrari model is the presence of a classical gluon mass leading to loss of
unitarity, if a mass was generated dynamically by the condensation of a dimension two
(BRST or gauge invariant) operator, then the unitarity issue may be circumvented.

3. LCO method

The LCO method is a procedure for including low dimension operators, such as ^A^A Afl ,
in the underlying quantum field theory and determining its effective potential. In this
way one can examine to what extent the operator condenses by calculating whether
the energy of the true vacuum when the operator is present is less than that of the
true vacuum in its absence. For QCD it turns out that it leads to a modification of
the Lagrangian so that new interactions are introduced which lead to an effective gluon
mass. Part of the justification in applying the LCO method to QCD in a variety of
gauges, such as the Landau, Curci-Ferrari or MAG, lies in the treatment of the two
dimensional O(N) Gross-Neveu model. There the mass gap is known exactly and the
LCO approach obtains values for the mass gap to a few percent for a large range of N,

We now summarise the application of the method in the case of QCD in the Landau
gauge. One of the advantages of this gauge is that the gauge invariant non-local operator

and

(3)

RGE and the LCO method

5

(HJ) truncates to a single term local composite operator ^A A A Afl , [S|. In this instance
one couples the operator to a source J yielding the energy functional W[J]

P -w\J] _

VlA^ipipcc] exp

d d x(L gi - l -Z m JAf + I(e + 50J 2

From this, W[J] satisfies a renormalization group equation

9

W[J]

(4)

(5)

where 7 m (g) is the anomalous dimension of the operator derived from the corresponding
renormalization constant Z m and fi is the renormalization scale introduced when one
uses dimensional regularization in d = 4 — 2e dimensions which is the regularization
employed here. To ensure renormalizability one requires the additional term quadratic
in J. This is because the vacuum energy in the presence of the operator is divergent
with divergences proportional to J 2 appearing. The coefficient of J 2 is defined as £
where 5£ is the counterterm and is at present not fixed, [B]. However, one can define a
renormalization group function for the infinities associated with the J 2 term which are
encoded in the related quantities fj(g,C) an d S(g) by

^lm{g)i + 5(g)

d

<%) = \2e + 2 lm {g)-(3{g)j^)K

(6)

In order to have a homogeneous renormalization group equation for W[J] the as yet
undetermined parameter £ must satisfy

27 m G?)£ + 6(g)

(?)

whence

»k +m i^~ lm{g) l J Tj

W[J]

(8)

Therefore solving (J2J) will determine £(g) once r ) m (g) and 8(g) are known and this ensures
that £(g) runs as g(fi) runs. More importantly the homogeneity of (jHJ) ensures that
one retains an energy interpretation so that an effective action and thence an effective
potential can be constructed for the operator in question, jHl ESI EZj ■

For practical calculations it would be more appropriate to have a functional with
a linear source. This can be achieved by a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation which
introduces a scalar field o via

Per exp

a x o + a 2 A A2 + a 3 J

(9)

where the coefficients a« are chosen appropriately to cancel the J 2 term. Consequently
in the Landau gauge one obtains the renormalizable Lagrangian for a, and therefore the
operator \A A A Ail as

If

rr 2 7 7 2

z A A „ _

2gt(g)Zt " %t(g)Zt

2g 2 ag)z,

(4M

(10)

RGE and the LCO method

6

Once the expressions for j m (g) and £(g) are known then the effective potential can be
constructed. Though for a two loop potential one requires the renormalization group
functions at three loops.

4. Three loop renormalization

As the LCO method relies on requiring explicit values of the renormalization group
functions at large loop order it is important to study the renormalization of QCD in
the context of the operator \A A A A ^ and in various gauges. For the Landau gauges all
the information to construct 7m(<?) in fact is in place. This is due to an observation
from explicit calculations and the general formalism of algebraic renormalization which
demonstrate that to all orders in perturbation theory the anomalous dimension of
\A A A Ali is not independent, [13]. More specifically

im{g) = iA(g) + ic{g) (n)

in the Landau gauge. This curious property is not restricted to this gauge as in the
MAG the anomalous dimension of the analogous dimension two operator, based on off-
diagonal fields, involves the anomalous dimensions of the diagonal gluon and diagonal
ghost, [2E]- In the more general Curci- Ferrari gauge we have observed a generalization
of (jllj) in an explicit three loop MS renormalization, ^3], which is

i m {g) = i A {g) + ic{g) - ^ a (g) (12)

where we note that unlike the linear covariant gauges the anomalous dimension
corresponding to the renormalization of the gauge parameter, 7 Q (g), is non-zero.
Unfortunately it has not been established whether this latter relation remains valid
beyond three loops.

One issue which arises when one is working with the renormalization of operators
and this is the question of operator mixing. The BRST invariant mass operator involves
the two terms ^A A A AfJi and c A c A . In principle it could be the case that the combination
O = \A A A Ail — ac A c A does not renormalize multiplicatively. However, in linear
covariant gauges it turns out that the mixing matrix is triangular, |4*5] . but not in the
Curci-Ferrari gauge. Indeed in [JE] the one loop mixing matrix for was determined
where 0\ = ^A A A Afl and O2 = c A c A . We have extended that calculation to two loops
for potential future extensions of the operator product expansion analysis of j3H] ■ If we
set

0l = Z ij O j (13)

where Zij is the mixing matrix of renormalization constants. With

d

jij(g) = v-Q-^Zij (14)

then we have

,'35 a\ /449 11a 3a 2 \ ^ 2 , 3 .

711 = h - C A a + 1 1 CW + 0(a 3 )

1 12 4 / 1 48 16 16 / A K J

RGE and the LCO method

7

72i = fc A a - (y + ^) C > 2 + °(« 3 )

where a = ^ 2 /(16tt 2 ), T a T a = C F 7, fACD jbgd = Ca5 ab and Tr ( t a t b^ = Tf< jAb_
These results were obtained by renormalizing the operators in the Curci-Ferrari model
where there is a non-zero infrared regulating mass, by inserting them into gluon
and ghost two-point functions. The Curci-Ferrari model has the advantage that
external momenta can be nullified without introducing spurious infrared infinities as
a consequence. It remains merely to extract the infinities from the resultant vacuum
bubbles. Not only did we reproduce the one loop matrix of Kondo, [IE], but we obtained
the result that

im(g) = 711(0) - 0721(0) (16)

at two loops, thus verifying that O is multiplicatively renormalizable at this order.

For three loop calculations the massive propagator approach is tedious and we
produced an equivalent method based on the Mincer algorithm, HH], which is
implemented in the symbolic manipulation language Form, . For example, one can
determine 5£ by treating the term \JA A A Ali of as an interaction and computing
the divergence structure of the J two-point function with massless internal fields
but not internal J propagators, (21] • The explicit Feynman diagrams are generated
automatically with the Qgraf package, [50] ■ The Mincer algorithm was especially
appropriate for the three loop renormalization of QCD in the MAG, |51j . which is
necessary for the construction of the two loop effective potential for the analogous
dimension two BRST invariant operator. Unlike the linear covariant gauges the full three
loop renormalization was determined only recently, [51]. Moreover, it was a significantly
large computation requiring the evaluation of 37322 Feynman diagrams compared with
of the order of 1000 for a linear covariant gauge three loop renormalization.

Briefly, the MAG involves the decomposition of the gauge field A A into diagonal
and off-diagonal sectors

A A T A = A^T a + A\T (17)

where 1 < a < N A and 1 < i < N A and N% is the dimension of the centre of the colour
group and iVf is the dimension of the remainder with N£ + iVf = Na- Notationally
we will reserve i, j, k and I for indices on objects which lie in the centre of the group
and the remaining lower case Roman letters for off-diagonal objects. Consequently, the
MAG gauge fixing term is, [2Tj .

Lf { AG = 55[\AlA a » + \ac a c a ] + 8 [c*^^] (18)

where 8 and 5 are the BRST and anti-BRST transformations. The remaining gauge
freedom associated with the diagonal gluons is fixed by using a Landau gauge. Further,

RGE and the LCO method

the analogous mass operator to O is

qMAG = 14*4** - ac a c a . (19)

To renormalize the resultant Lagrangian

Lf { AG = - -L (d»A a rf - -L (^4) 2 + c a «^«V a + c'd^d

+ 9 2

2a V "7 2a
+ g [f abk A a ^c k d^c b - f abc A a ^d^c c

_ }_ rabkgfij^a j^b j^kv _ rabk Qfj, j^a ^-k

a p p

_ -/ abc dM£cV - 2f abk A k c a d^c b - f abk d»A k c b c c
i

racbd j^a j^b fi—c d rakbl j\a j\b \k \l u

j d fi 2a ^ ^

_l_ f a i cl A a A> ^c c c l + f alc3 A a A^(fc l — f c i di A 1 A^c c c d
- ^fd bcd c a c b c c c d - ^fZ bcd c a c b c c c d

+ -fZ cbd c a c b c c c d - -fZ bd c a c b c c c l
8 4

+ jfo Cbl c a c h c c c l - ^ff c c a c b c c c l + ^fZ kbl c a c b c k c l

where

jABCD _ jiAB jiCD jABCD _ jeAB j^CD ^20)

one introduces renormalization constants via, |2El E2J E31 EH E3 EE] ,

A^" = yJZ A A afl , Atf = \/Z A <A tfl

Cn \ Z c. C , Cn \f Z r C

g Q =fi t Z g g , a = 2 a %a , a = ZjZ A i a . (21)

However, it is crucial to note that this choice is determined by the application of the
algebraic renormalization method, [213 . This shows, for example, that the diagonal ghost
two-point function is finite to all orders and implies that its anomalous dimension must
be deduced from another Green's function such as the A^c 1 ^ vertex. Also, the diagonal
gluon anomalous dimension is not independent since its associated renormalization
constant is equivalent to that for the coupling constant, [2H]- A similar feature occurs
in the background field gauge, jS3 EH EH EH]- Whilst the application of the Mincer
algorithm is straightforward to extract all the necessary renormalization constants, the
bulk of the work lies in symbolically implementing the underlying group theory relations
founded upon the elementary equations

fijk = pk = q ^ jabk ^ Q ; fabc ^ Q _ (22)

RGE and the LCO method

9

Consequently one obtains representative anomalous dimensions of the following form in
the MS scheme

1

and

7c* (°)

+

NX ((-a - 3)CU) + m ((-2a - 6)C A )
1

96iV 4 o2

iVf ((- 6a 2 - 66a - 190)C^ + 80C a Tf7V))

+ NXN% ((- 54a 2 - 354a - 323)C 2 A + 160C a Tf7V)
+ Nf ((- 60a 2 - 372a + 510)C£)

+

69127Vf

iVf ((- 162a 3 - 2727a 2 - 2592( 3 a - 18036a

70(a)

- 1944C 3 - 63268) C\ + (6912a + 62208C 3 + 6208) C^TV)
+ (- 82944C 3 + mm)C A C F T F N f + 8960CUT|7V/)

+ NfN%((- 2754a 3 + 648C 3 « 2 - 28917a 2 - 4212C 3 a

- 69309a + 37260C 3 - 64544)C 3

+ (25488a + 103680C 3 - 13072)C 2 A T F N f

+ (- 165888C 3 + 155520)C A C F T F N f + 17920C A T|A^ 2 )

+ N%Nf((- 7884a 3 + 22680C 3 a 2 - 84564a 2 + 97524( 3 a

- 47142a + 433836C 3 - 56430)^

+ (25056a - 124416C 3 - 181U)C 2 A T F N f )

+ Nf((- 6480a 3 + 34992C 3 a 2 - 70092a 2 + 8424( 3 a

+ 114912a + 77112C 3 - 161028)Ci)l a 3 + 0(a 4 ) (23)

NX ((- 3a + 35)C A - 167/ TV)) + N A ((- 6a - 18)C A )

12NX

+

9QNf

NX 1

- 6a 2 - 66a + 898) C\ - 560C A T f N f

- 38AC F T f N f )
+ NXNX 1 ((- 54a 2 - 354a - 323) C\ + mC A T f N/j

+ Nf ((- 60a 2 - 372a + 510)C 2 1 )] a 2
iVf ((- 162a 3 - 2727a 2

+

1

6912iV£ 3

2592( 3 a - 18036a

- 1944C 3 + 302428)Ci
+ (6912a + 62208C 3 - 356032)C^7>iV /
+ (- 82944C 3

i2t at i oo^nori t>2 A/-2

79680)C A C F T F N f + 49408C A T 2 N 2

+ 13824C£T F iV / + 33792C F T F Nf)
+ NX 2 Ni((- 2754a 3 + 648a 2 C 3 - 28917a 2
- 4212aC 3 - 69309a + 37260C 3 - 64544) C\

RGE and the LCO method

10

+ (25488a + 103680C 3 - 13072)C^T F iV /

+ (- 165888C 3 + 155520)CUC?f7>JV/ + 17920C A T F N?)

+ N£Nf((- 7884a 3 + 22680a 2 C 3 - 84564a 2 + 97524aC 3

- 47142a + 433836Cs - 56430)Ci + (25056a - 124416C 3

- 181U)C 2 A T F N f ) +Nf((- 6480a 3 + 34992a 2 Cs - 70092a 2
+ 8424aCs + 114912a + 77112C 3 - 161028)C^)] a 3 + 0(a 4 )

(24)

for the MAG mass operator where ( n is the Riemann zeta function, [51]. In addition
the three loop /^-function correctly emerges from the diagonal gluon two-point function
which is a strong check on the programming and computation since not only must it
be independent of the gauge parameter a but also of the sector dimensions N A and N%.
Another useful check on this and the anomalous dimensions was the fact that the known
Curci- Ferrari gauge anomalous dimensions, |4T[ 142[ 14^] . emerge in the limit N^/N^ —* 0.
This is consistent with the relation of the Curci- Ferrari gauge to the MAG, [T3*] .

5. Results

Having detailed the renormalization group aspects underlying the LCO formalism we
now briefly summarize recent results of determining estimates for the gluon mass in
various gauges, jHlEHESl- First, for the Landau gauge the effective potential for a is,

0121,

XT/ V 9iV A /2

V{a) = — — Aid "

Ca ( — — CVA1A2 —CfXiXz

V 8 16

249 27 \ 2 / 81 81

+ T7^^2 — —-^3 ] + ^ A 1 — 77:^1^2 + ~^l-^3

12

128 64 J A V 16 32

+ I — — CpXo H CpA 1 ?

128 32 32

g 2 N A a

7T 2

0(g 4

where space has restricted us to the one loop expression and Ai = [13CU — 8TpNf] 1 ,
A 2 = [35C A - 16T F N f ]-\ A 3 = [19C A - STpNf]- 1 and a = {13C ^-st fN ^ ■ Examining
the solution to V'(er) = there are two possibilities which are (a) = or (a) 7^ 0.
For the former this is the original classical vacuum but the latter corresponds to a
new vacuum which has an energy lower than the former. Thus in the presence of
the \A^A Ail operator the effective potential produces a new vacuum which is stable
unlike the now unstable (perturbative) classical vacuum. Moreover, boundedness of
the potential requires that [13(7^ — 8T F N F ] needs to be positive, [23]. Interestingly
this corresponds to the Landau gauge one loop gluon anomalous dimension which has
been suggested as part of the necessary criterion underlying confinement when that
problem is considered from a renormalization group perspective, jnUIH2]- Consequently
if one defines m 2 ff = c/{g^{g)) as an effective gluon mass then for SU(3) Yang-Mills

RGE and the LCO method

11

m e ff = 2.13A^g from the two loop potential [SJ 121] • This is within 2% of the one
loop estimate indicating a degree of stability in the approach. As an alternative one
can compute the gluon pole mass by first redefining a 1 in terms of the pole mass and
demanding the alternative condition,

^Opole)

^^pole

. (25)

Interestingly at one loop this produces a Yang-Mills mass which is independent of the
renormalization scale, [63J. Though at two loops, like the effective mass of [S], the pole
mass derived from the effective potential is scale dependent.

For the MAG the analysis is not fully complete as only the one loop potential for
SU (2) has been determined, However, the situation there is encouraging in that for
pure Yang-Mills a mass is generated for the off-diagonal gluons which is m e g- = 2.25A^jg.
This is not dissimilar to the Landau gauge SU{2) estimate of m e g = 2.03A^jg. In
addition the off-diagonal ghost and diagonal gluon remain massless. The appearance
of the potential diagonal gluon mass operator, ^A^A 1 ^, in the LCO action used for the
MAG, [26], is excluded by the diagonal U(l) Ward identity deriving from the algebraic
renormalization analysis, |2Ej- We are unable to prove the renormalizability of the action
supplemented with a mass term like \J 'A 1 A 111 . Indeed overall this mass generation
scenario appears to be consistent with SU(2) lattice studies in the maximal abelian
gauge, HUES El.

6. Conclusions

We conclude with various observations. First, we have given an overview of the current
status of the application of the local composite operator method to the condensation of
a renormalizable dimension two operator in QCD in various gauges, concentrating on
the underlying renormalization group aspects. One main feature is the construction of a
two loop effective potential for the operator which requires knowledge of the three loop
anomalous dimensions of QCD. Whilst these are known for linear covariant gauges,
to examine the abelian dominance hypothesis in the infrared, the more appropriate
maximal abelian gauge needs to be used. This has required the full three loop
renormalization of QCD in the MAG, which is a significantly larger computation from
the point of view of the number of Feynman diagrams to be evaluated. Moreover, it
opens up the possibility of examining the generation of a mass for the off-diagonal gluon
at the two loop level and for gauge groups other than SU(2). Whilst this may seem to
be a feature of this gauge, the issue of whether one can access abelian dominance in a
covariant gauge, where the properties of the centre of the group are not explicit in the
fields one uses, has recently been studied using the LCO formalism, jHE]. In particular
the presence of ghost condensates in SU(2) appears to be central in the dynamical
generation of a mass for the off diagonal gluons which is different from that of the
diagonal gluons. Indeed there would appear to be evidence from a recent lattice study
to support this point of view, [H7j .

RGE and the LCO method

12

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support which was provided by the Conselho
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq-Brazil), the Faperj,
Fundagao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, the SR2-UERJ, the
Coordenagao de Aperfeigoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES), PPARC for a
research studentship and the Special Research Fund of Ghent University.

References

[1] G.K. Savvidy, Phys. Lett. B71 (1977), 133.

[2] V.P. Gusynin & V.A. Miransky, Phys. Lett. B76 (1978), 585.

[3] R. Fukuda & T. Kugo, Prog. Theor. Phys. 60 (1978), 565.

[4] R. Fukuda, Phys. Lett. B73 (1978), 33; Phys. Lett. B74 (1978), 433.

[5] M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein & V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979), 385.

[6] F.V. Gubarev, L. Stodolsky & V.I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001), 2220.

[7] F.V. Gubarev & V.I. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B501 (2001), 28.

[8] H. Verschelde, K. Knecht, K. van Acoleyen & M. Vanderkelen, Phys. Lett. B516 (2001), 307.
[9] P. Boucaud, A. Le Yaouanc, J. P. Leroy, J. Micheli, O. Pene & J. Rodriguez-Quintero, Phys. Rev.
D63 (2001), 114003.

[10] P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, A. Le Yaounac, J. Micheli, O. Pene, F. De Soto, A. Donini, H. Moutarde

& J. Rodriguez-Quintero, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002), 034504.
[11] P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, A. Le Yaounac, AY. Lokhov, J. Micheli, O. Pene, J. Rodriguez-Quintero

& C. Roiesnel, |hep-lat /0507005|
[12] K.-I. Kondo & T. Shinohara, Phys. Lett. B491 (2000), 263.
[13] K.-I. Kondo, Phys. Lett. B514 (2001), 335.
[14] K.-I. Kondo, hep-ph/0110013.
[15] M. Schaden, pie"p-th/99090li|
[16] M. Schaden, hep-th/0108034

[17] U. Ellwanger & N. Wschebor, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18 (2003), 1595.

[18] D. Dudal & H. Verschelde, J. Phys. A36 (2003), 8507.

[19] V.E.R. Lemes, M.S. Sarandy & S.P. Sorella, J. Phys. A36 (2003), 7211.

[20] V.E.R. Lemes, M.S. Sarandy & S.P. Sorella, Mod. Phys. Lett. A18 (2003), 711.

[21] V.E.R. Lemes, M.S. Sarandy & S.P. Sorella, Ann. Phys. 308 (2003), 1.

[22] D. Dudal, H. Verschelde, V.E.R. Lemes, M.S. Sarandy, S.P. Sorella & M. Picariello, Ann. Phys.
308 (2003), 62.

[23] D. Dudal, A.R. Fazio, V.E.R. Lemes, M. Picariello, M.S. Sarandy, S.P. Sorella & H. Verschelde,

Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 127C (2004), 154.
[24] R.E. Browne & J.A. Gracey, JHEP 0311 (2003), 029.

[25] D. Dudal, H. Verschelde, J.A. Gracey, V.E.R. Lemes, M.S. Sarandy, R.F. Sobreiro & S.P. Sorella,
JHEP 0401 (2004), 044.

[26] D. Dudal, J.A. Gracey, V.E.R. Lemes, M.S. Sarandy, R.F. Sobreiro, S.P. Sorella & H. Verschelde,

Phys. Rev D70 (2004), 114038.
[27] J. Greensite & M.B. Halpern, Nucl. Phys. B271 (1986), 379.

[28] P. Boucaud, G. Burgio, F. Di Renzo, J. P. Leroy, J. Micheli, C. Parrinello, O. P ene, C. Pittori, J.
Rodriguez-Quintero, C. Roiesnel & K. Sharkey, JHEP 0004 (2000), 006.

[29] D. Becirevic, P. Boucaud, F. De Soto, A. Le Yaouanc, J. P. Leroy, J. Micheli, O. Pene, J. Rodriguez-
Quintero & C. Roiesnel, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002), 867.

[30] J.H. Field, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002), 013013.

RGE and the LCO method

13

[31] Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974), 4262; G. 't Hooft, High Energy Physics EPS Int. Conference,

Palermo 1975, ed. A. Zichichi; S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rept. 23 (1976), 245.
[32] G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B190 (1981), 455.
[33] Z.F. Ezawa & A. Iwazaki, Phys. Rev. D25 (1982), 2681.
[34] K. Amemiya & H. Suganuma, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999), 114509.

[35] V.G. Bornyakov, M.N. Chernodub, F.V. Gubarev, S.M. Morozov & M.I. Polikarpov, Phys. Lett.

B559 (2003), 214.
[36] H. Verschelde, Phys. Lett. B351 (1995), 242.

[37] H. Verschelde, S. Schelstraete & M. Vanderkelen, Z. Phys. C76 (1997), 161.
[38] G. Curci & R. Ferrari, Nuovo Cim. A32 (1976), 151.
[39] I. Ojima, Z. Phys. C13 (1982), 173.

[40] J. de Boer, K. Skenderis, P. van Nieuwenhuizen & A. Waldron, Phys. Lett. B367 (1996), 175.

[41] J. A. Gracey, Phys. Lett. B525 (2002), 89.

[42] R.E. Browne & J.A. Gracey, Phys. Lett. B540 (2002), 68.

[43] D. Dudal, H. Verschelde & S.P. Sorella, Phys. Lett. B555 (2003), 126.

[44] J.A. Gracey, Phys. Lett. B552 (2003), 101.

[45] D. Dudal, H. Verschelde, V.E.R. Lemes, M.S. Sarandy, R.F. Sobreiro, S.P. Sorella, M. Picariello,

J.A. Gracey, Phys. Lett. B569 (2003), 57.
[46] K.I. Kondo, T. Murakami, T. Shinohara & T. Imai, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002), 085034.
[47] S.G. Gorishny, S.A. Larin, L.R. Surguladze & F.K. Tkachov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 55 (1989),

381.

[48] S.A. Larin, F.V. Tkachov & J.A.M. Vermaseren, "The Form version of Mincer" , NIKHEF-H-91-18.

[49] J.A.M. Vermaseren, |math-ph/0 010025

[50] P. Nogueira, J. Comput. Phys. 105 (1993), 279.

[51] J.A. Gracey, JHEP 0504 (2005), 012.

[52] H. Min, T. Lee & P.Y. Pac, Phys. Rev. D32 (1985), 440.

[53] A.R. Fazio, V.E.R. Lemes, M.S. Sarandy & S.P. Sorella, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001), 085003.
[54] T. Shinohara, T. Imai & K.I. Kondo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18 (2003), 5733.
[55] K.I. Kondo & T. Shinohara, Prog. Theor. Phys. 105 (2001), 649.
[56] T. Shinohara, Mod. Phys. Lett. A18 (2003), 1398.

[57] B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967), 1195; G. 't Hooft, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 368
(1976), 345, Proceedings of the 1975 Winter School of Theoretical Physics held in Karpacz; B.S.
DeWitt, in Proceedings of Quantum Gravity II, eds C. Isham, R. Penrose & S. Sciama, (Oxford,
1980), 449.

[58] D.G. Boulware, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981), 389.

[59] L.F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B185 (1981), 189.

[60] DM. Capper & A. MacLean, Nucl. Phys. B203 (1982), 413.

[61] K. Nishijima, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9 (1994), 3799.

[62] M. Chaichian & K. Nishijima, Eur. Phys. J. C22 (2001), 463.

[63] R.E. Browne & J.A. Gracey, Phys. Lett. B597 (2004), 368.

[64] J.A. Gracey, Eur. Phys. J. C39 (2005), 61.

[65] M.N. Chernodub, K. Ishiguro, Y. Mori, Y. Nakamura, M.I. Polikarpov, T. Sekido, T. Suzuki &

V.I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005), 074505.
[66] M.A.L. Capri, D. Dudal, J.A. Gracey, V.E.R. Lemes, R.F. Sobreiro, S.P. Sorella & H. Verschelde,

|h^p~th70508216

[67] A. Cucchieri, T. Mendes & A. Mihari, hep-lat/0508028